Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  November 28, 2017 6:00am-7:01am PST

6:00 am
projects is that, you know, we originally had operations working with the designer, but when we brought the contractor on, they start participating in solutions and how to lower the costs, because we went smgc, where they're helping us, helping the designer say, hey, it's a better way of doing this. it will cost less money. it will be more efficient for us. and we're bringing our consultant contract manager on, because one of the things that we talked about is before we normally get two cost estimates, but now since we have a contractor on board we get a cost estimate. when we get our designer, they feta cost estimate. so we have three levels of
6:01 am
having some confidence that whatever that price is, we're going to meet that. so i think we're very comfortable with our ability to deliver the projects in phase one, but i do understand the projects in phase two and three, because those are further out. and then the question is, when do you bring them into the fold. and i agree with andy, in that we're constantly looking. when we identify a solution, say, in phase one, it could eliminate something in phase two, so we want to come to you and let you know. so the other thing is that we talked about, this is a large program. it's a lots of projects. so we can go over the whole thing in one sitting, but you will be sitting for a long time. so we talked about doing it in chunks. so treatment is a chunk. so that's why we wanted to go
6:02 am
over that. but the one thing that i've heard is that we want to be sure that we cross-reference what's in phase one and phase two, so it's clear what we're combining. like we did before. if something is eliminated, we cross it out and say why. if we're combining, two arrows into a main project. and the reason is that it's efficient and they can demo one versus another. so we'll do a better job of that. so i have some notes and will be sure when we present it, we'll make it clear. and we want to double back on the green infrastructure and efforts that talk about the triple bottom line and all of that stuff, so we'll come back and have another presentation just on green infrastructure. >> yeah. and i'm still left behind in the
6:03 am
collection system presentation. i still have been processing and thinking about that overall. it's the other issues, i think, around that the world has changed, contractor is now on board, he's come up with efficiency solutions, which we appreciate, but it does impact our original visions and goals. a lot of the public participated in that. so maybe offline you can answer some more of my questions and in addition, too, how it fits together and what the implications are for the program and cost overall. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> anyone for public comment on this item? okay. madam secretary? item 9 is the consent calendar. all matters listed under consent calendar considered to be routine by the san francisco
6:04 am
public utilities commission and will be acted upon by a vote of the commission. no separate discussions unless a member of the commission or public request and in which time it will be removed from calendar. we need to remove 9a, because i have some changes to the resolution that were provided to the commission yesterday and also you have copies in front of you. and i will read those when you are ready. line >> go ahead. >> would you like to -- for me to do that first or approve b and c first? >> let's approve b and c first. >> call for public comment? >> yes. any public comment on items 9b or 9c? okay. >> i would like to move -- >> second.
6:05 am
>> okay. all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed? >> approved. >> for item 9a on the resolution, the seventh whereas clause, "whereas moderations 1-9 were issued for aggregated amount of $13,244 and time efrm tension of 402 calendar days. and increasing contract amount to $7,403,000. it should red negative $37,500. and resolve clause fourth line should say "decreasing the contract amount by $37,500."
6:06 am
other than that, the resolution has no other changes. so we would need a motion to approve the resolution as amended. >> i will move it as amended. >> second. >> any public comment? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? all right. approved, thank you. >> item 10, authorized the general manager to negotiate and execution exclusive negotiating agreement with reservoir community partners llc to develop mixed income, housing, and approximately 17 acres of property at ocean beach and phelan avenues in san francisco known as balboa reservoir. >> michael carlin, deputy g.m. i will be brief on this item since there was 160 pages of information in your packages that i assume you've all read.
6:07 am
i thought i would answer a couple of questions raised by people. the first that keeps come thing up is city college in san francisco. and city college of san francisco has been a partner of ours in this process since 2015. over the last two years, we've been working together to basically find a developer for the site and select the developer. they knew what our plans were. they were instrumental in helping to get the request for qualifications developed and approved and the requests for proposals approved. we've been transparent with city college during this time. and i think that's a significant thing that's lost on the public that they did know about this project and it's important. i also want to point out that basically, there's been some confusion on notification to other parties about the potential for this underutilized
6:08 am
property for them to buy it from us. and we have asked the city attorney with that and that you can proceed with approving the exclusive negotiating agreement. the other thing that's come up is parking. this property is used for parking for city college and other activities as well. they do some motorcycle training, things like that, in the parking right there. and this is a big issue. we specifically -- when we selected this developer, they were very responsive. they're bringing on a parking lot specialist. somebody that knows how to build parking lots with educational facilities. so they do have experience like working on parking lots on the u.c. berkeley campus and urban campus interface. so i think that's important.
6:09 am
it's in the transit hub. parking will be important. we want to be sure there is significant parking. and we'll work with city college. we don't have a final proposal. those are things that we can negotiate and we'll negotiate hard with the developer. the next thing basically, affordable housing. i remember presenting the terms for the rfq. and this commission instructs me to take the 33% and push it to 50%. we did that. and this developer is committed to doing 50% affordable housing on the site. so if it's 1,100 units, it will be about 550 that will be affordable, and that's to low- moderate and middle-income families that's an important aspect to this. the city subsidy makes it impossible to do 100% affordable
6:10 am
housing. they want to spread it around so we have mixed communities. we've heard a lot about the performing arts center. we will work with city college as they develop their plans to make sure that it's incorporated as part of the project. in other words, there will be a deliniation between the projects. there will be walkways. not precluding that at all. the other thing that you should know, some people suggested that we sell this to city college for $1. you are required to get fair market value. please recall you've done this with the recreation and parks department and mayor's office of housing and we followed that letter of the law as well. i can go through and talk about
6:11 am
the process that got us here today, but i think there's a lot of people waiting in this room to speak to you and you basically have the -- i will be available to answer any questions, but it's been a long process and we're at the point where we recommend you understand us to sign the exclusive negotiating agreement. >> michael, the reservoir on bay street, we did that transaction within the last two years. do you remember generally what the terms were? >> we got $12 million for it from recreation and parks department. >> can i ask you a question, too? i know that one of the questions that i've received is around the state surplus land act. and city attorney has opined on that. as a city agent and enterprise department, we have different rules we're governed by, correct? >> we're governed by the same
6:12 am
rules as anyone else in the city. >> state surplus land act, that says if there is surplus lands, that it needs to be made available for sale, but because our city charter says that we have to sell our lands at fair market value. correct? >> correct. >> do you want to opine -- >> there are two issues. the state surplus lands act, the issue is not about the sales price. the requirement that puc obtain fair market value comes from the city charter and other state laws. surplus land act has a provision that when public agencies have determined the land that needs to be surplus, need to give written notice to public entities to have the opportunity to purchase the property. >> well, that's not governed by surplus land.
6:13 am
>> so we would have to get notice to interested policies that land would be available. >> yes. it would have to be in the next several years. >> this land is not declared surplus at this point. >> that's right. it's underutilized. we will not declare it surplus once you accept the terms and conditions. once the developer comes back, we finalize the deal and sell it to them. >> before we go to public comment, we have a large number of speakers and we lose the room around 5:00 and we have a long list of agenda items and only one meeting in november. i have 12 requests. can i ask, are there any folks here in the room that have not filled out this card that would like to speak?
6:14 am
1, 2, 3, 4. so we have 16 people total. 17. do i hear 18? [laughter] in the consider of time, would i like to give each speaker a chance to say their peace. we're going to truncate it to 2 minutes, so we can get everyone through and get through our agenda items. i'm going to call each of you p up. the first is mr. michael ahrens. >> my name is michael ahrens, resident of westwood park. and i am the appointee to the balboa reservoir citizens advisory committee. the parking problem for city college has to be solved between the city of san francisco and
6:15 am
city college. we talked to the city about that. it's not been done. we've taken one position. that this exclusive negotiatation agreement should not be signed before that problem is solved. why not? it gives substantial legal rights to a developer and not the city. it's not the city negotiating with city college. it's the developer. look at paragraph 1a. it says that the city of san francisco will not solicitor consider any other proposals or negotiate with any person for the aquisition or development. so if city college wants to talk to the city, they can't. it's in the hands of a profit-making organization, the developer. that's why -- and the developer may grant or withhold that consent in the sole discretion, absolute. so nothing can be done without the developer. how long do they have the rights?
6:16 am
2.1, phase one, for 9 months and 6 months, and then they can extend it another 12 months. if in reasonable discretion, they haven't been doing their job. both sides have said, oh, this can't be solved until the problem is solved. city said that. the developer in the back of the room has said that, but it's not in this contract. this contract is the only legal thing you are signing. you are giving away substantial legal rights on a one-sided contract in favor of the contractor in this case. bottom line, you will find that you will not be able to talk to city college, city can't talk to city college. there's no condition in this contract that city college has to consent to this. everybody says, that's the point, but there's an
6:17 am
integration clause that said everything in this clause is all there is. >> thank you. [applause] >> all right. next is mr. john winston. welcome. limit to the second chime. >> i occupy seat 9 of the cac, at-large seat. i have a letter from our chair, lisa spineli, sunniside residential seat. "as chair of balboa seat, i'm sorry i'm unable to attend today as i'm out of town for work. i want to give my support for the developer. over the last few years, the cac with the community have worked hard to outline the parameters
6:18 am
and principles for the selection process. it created a framework for developer candidates to utilize for their proposals and serve as a core part of the criteria the select developer. in my role as chair, i serve on the selection committee and ccsf. we participated along with city employees, the process was very thoughtful and thorough. at the conclusion of the process, avalon bay/bay bridge housing scored highest on the selection criteria. they appreciate the opportunity to build on 17 acres of san francisco land. they're committed to working with the community and will bring their best thinking and creativity for open space and the community." can i have 2 minutes for myself
6:19 am
as well? >> no. you can fill out another card and come back up. thank you. jennifer heji? >> i'm from sunnyside, neighborhood avase jays -- adjacent to the development. city college would be stressed. they train our police, firefighters, nurses, and provides opportunities for many others in the region. i request that you deny the e.n.a. frequently business opportunities win out and access to educational institutions should not be at risk. parking and public transportation has not been resolved. if this is developed, they will lose 1,000 parking spots.
6:20 am
city college had planned to construct a needed arts education center on their campus, but would remove about 500 parking places, at least that many. in the city college transportation survey, students' top priority was to get to class on time. what stands in the way, inadequate public transit, parking, and congestion. there's been no assurances that transit will be improved. it's unclear that the necessary improvements are even possible by the time this development is projected to be in place. these issues will not go away and the number of students is projected to increase. no getting around the fact that the denser the new development, the greatest the congestion. this includes sharing the crosswalks and sidewalks with
6:21 am
high schools as well as city college as well as competing with buses, bicycles and projected longer lines at bart. city college students -- is that it? >> thank you. yeah. mr. steve zeltzer. >> united public workers for action. first of all, i'm outraged really that the city has spent millions of dollars of city manage to push this developer they've not come to the union or the staff and asked them their opinion. that's a lie. you are using money, our public money, for the developers, that want this site, who want to make money off this site. that's what this is about. the fact of the matter is, city college is a treasure and it should be protected. you are putting the developers first, not the people of san francisco and students that need city college. last night the san francisco
6:22 am
labor council unanimously -- almost unanimously voted it should be turned over to city college for their development and not the privateers that want million-dollar condos. ocean avenue is already crowded. bring u1,300 units, it will be gridlock. you are not helping the students or the community. you talk about policy. is it the policy of the board to privatize public space snz is that your policy? if it is, along with mayor ed lee, who is more interested in developers than the people of san francisco. it's a charade. it's privitazation. you don't have an e.p.i. you haven't done a steady on the effect of the community and gridlock of students that need parking. you made promises, but we know about the promises of developers. they promise, promise and then do what they damn well please.
6:23 am
we have a rejection of transfer and transfer to city college for the use of city college. if you do pass this, we pledge that we will have an initiative to protect the people of city college and not have more million-dollar condos in san francisco. that's well we need to protect city college. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. next up, francena litrono. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> my comments are, public lands should not be privatized. it's been used by city college for 40 years. the best use is by the college and its students and future generations of students rather than housing. i have to ask, how can any one
6:24 am
of you explain how government code can be ignored and circumvented. 54222 requires that the land be declared surplus. how is the execution of this exclusive negotiating agreement not illegal? was a written public offer given to these public institutions? finally, as far as the "robust community engagement process," it's important to know that the machinations of the balboa land grab has been anything but. they're politically motivated and controlled the processes that the public has expressed demands especially for the predetermined outcome of housing on the reservoir the neighborhoods are overwhelmingly against this and we have not been listened to like everybody says we have been. so when you read those principles and parameters, it
6:25 am
would be illuminating to look at the minutes and comments. thank you. >> thank you. [applause] >> mr. aldin jaw. >> first off, i would like to express my appreciation to commissioner vietor for wanting to connect the dots and see the big picture and i'm asking all of you to do the same in regard to the d.n.a. way back, 50 years ago, i went through the public high school system and i learned a few things. basically, when you draw a conclusion, you have to make sure your assumptions are accurate. if you have incorrect assumptions, wrong assumptions, your conclusion will be wrong.
6:26 am
if you only use evidence or facts in your favored conclusions and disregard the evidence and facts that are unfavorable, your conclusions will be wrong, okay? and basically, this is what the balboa project people are doing, the reservoir project staff is doing. prior to the iraq war, british intelligence analyzed how the iraq war was being set up and they said that the intelligence and facts are being fixed around the policy. and that's exactly what is being pushed on you right now, so i would like to ask you to not allow yourself to be stampeded by the reservoir staff into making a big step that will have
6:27 am
substantial consequences on the entire community. hopefully you read my other stuff that i send you. anyway, thank you. >> thank you. mr. roger scott? good afternoon. welcome. >> good afternoon. my name is roger scott. i taught at city college for, i believe, 42 years and i'm currently a member of the san francisco labor council and also i served on the executive board of ift 2121 for over four decades. i would like to share some personal observations and suggestions and then would like to quote parts of the resolution that was passed last night at the labor council. i think history supports my skepticism of public solutions
6:28 am
by private-public organizations. i think we've been examples of that, working well in theory and to the detriment of the commons in reality. last night, the labor council passed this resolution that had been submitted by my union at city college. the title is "resolution: public land must stay in public hands." the first whereas i would like to site, "whereas we understand public lands to be sacred from previous generations whose future belongs to many generations into the future and not a commodity to sell." the current public plan inadequately addresses the need for affordable housing. the labor council ask the puc to transfer the public property to city college of san francisco and be it further resolved that
6:29 am
the labor council will call on other unions to pass the resolution along asking the puc to transfer the public policy to city college. be it resolved that the labor council urged the san francisco city college board of trustees and administration to advocate vigorously for the interests of the college that public land remain in public hands." thank you. >> mr. robert barney, please. good afternoon. >> good afternoon. i'm a former trustee of city college of san francisco. and i've been away for a few
6:30 am
years. but it is my intention and that of many others to see that city college of san francisco is ultimately ranked in the state of california among approximately 130 community colleges to be the best community college in the state of california. we're on our way to be there. i'd like to start by reading "san fransisco chronicle," per chance some of you haven't read it. "a longstanding land dispute between the city of san francisco and city college of san francisco has been resolved. the tract of unused land known as the south balboa reservoir will be used by the city college
6:31 am
to expand the 30,000-student college. it's thought to be the largest and one of the most crowded community colleges in the country. three times during the 1980s, voters defeated a controversial proposal to build low-cost housing at the -- in the land of city college. in exchange for use of the 11-acre south balboa reservoir and air rights to the 14-acre north balboa reservoir site, city college has given a piece of land it owns on the corner of 17th and folsom. what i just said is that city
6:32 am
college purchased the land and in payment city college made a donation or gift, whatever you want to call it, of the land at 17th and folsom in payment for that land. the land is owned by city college. >> thank you. i'm sorry. your 2 minutes is up. >> why is anyone asking for these trades -- >> thank you. i need to give other people a chance to speak. thank you very much for your time. [applause] >> we have to treat everyone equally. >> we have to give everyone the same amount of time, i'm afraid. thank you. >> we can't -- >> thank you very much for your time. i appreciate it.
6:33 am
we have to give everyone a fair audience. you can fill out another card if you want to do another 2 minutes. i will have to interrupt you right here and invite you to let the next speaker come up. leslie simon, are you here? good afternoon. welcome. >> thank you for the opportunity. long time faculty at city college of san francisco. please do not sign this e.n.a. do not allow the p.u.c. to do the job that the now-much-discredited commission of junior colleges tried to do and failed. please consider the damaged reputation of the acc-jc that tried to destroy one of the most beloved institutions. the reputation of p.u.c. is at stake. in the attempt to close the college by threatening to
6:34 am
withdraw accreditatioaccreditat damaged the reputation the college has been vindicated and they had to clean house by firing the person that led the unfair campaign against the college. our enrollment is once again climbing to healthy levels. now enters the puc. will to grant this ena to developers that propose to build 1,300 units in the balboa reservoir. the loss of parking will cause our enrollment to plummet again. once the ena is signed, the puc will no longer be able to talk to the college about solutions to the parking problem created by the development. there is no doubt that some truly affordable housing can be built on the site, with reconfigured parking to meet the needs of low-income students
6:35 am
with two and three jobs and children to drop off and pick up. do not allow the puc to do the job that the new-much-discredited acc-jc tried to do and failed. [applause] >> thank you. christine hanson. welcome. good afternoon. >> 22 balboa reservoir meetings have felt like a done deal. not if as referred to as "robust two-year process." newcomer after newcomer has said, why does this process feel like it's a done deal? the poor newcomers the rest of us just shake our heads and watch their disbelief. it's been an effort not at community feedback but buy-in. folks are not buying in.
6:36 am
your wfip project paid for the first parking study of city college done in 2014 for the balboa reservoir project, that was in the middle of the state takeover. the other parking study was the tdm andrewable -- and viewable on planning's website. it was done during dead week. we've been told for 1 1/2 years that more data will be taken. okay. when? there are four blank exhibits. they will be filled out after you approve it today and it will contain about what drilling and staging will need to be done by the developer. i guess we'll all be surprised
6:37 am
it find out what that will being. your land has still -- including you guys will be surprised. your land still has not been declared surplus. the ena will throw a monkey wrench into that process. you're standing in front of a freight train. if you try to stop this thing today by sending the ena back for revisions, yes, you will stand in front of a freight train, but the freight train will roll over a lot of good san francis franciscoans and a great college. >> michael adams. welcome. good afternoon. >> thank you. i haven't been called mister in a while. thank you very much. i appreciate all the work you are doing. you're a public utility. city college of san francisco is a public utility.
6:38 am
you pipeline water to the users. city college pipelines education to the developing community in the interest of the labor market. what we have here is a hostile act. two times you and we voters pass bond issues on a part of city college's parking lot and the out come is that parking lot will be reduced as we build the facility passed two times by us, the voters. developers know this. avalon already got their footprint in the backyard of this community. how much more do they want?
6:39 am
the interest in taking the parking that will be impacted is a hostile act. it's clearly known what will be done by city college in planning for it. it has -- it weighs the value of students against the value of property. be careful about the code words that you are hearing. you heard underutilized land. i would invite you to go to the open space and try to call it underutilized, below which is a three-story parking lot. it's vacant. hotelers would love to build a hotel on that. you can partner with city college and create a solar farm, a solar garden. >> okay. thank you. thank you. all right. next is ms. kristie wang.
6:40 am
are you here? good afternoon. how you doing? >> i'm kristie wang, spur community planning property director, focused on good planning and good government. you are probably familiar with our work on sustainability and resilience, but i'm working on housing. i'm here to support your government's work to make this site available for mixed-income housing and other uses like public open space. our city, region, state are all experiencing a housing short am and affordability crisis that's impacting people of all walks of life in our communities and impacting quality of life. we have a thriving economy that is attracting employers and employees and we don't have enough housing units to go around, which is resulting in higher home prices, rents, and presenting barriers to many
6:41 am
people that want to be here or are here and can't afford to stay here. so this site, if it's no longer needed for water storage, is a key site for housing. it's located close to bart, close to muni and other desirable amenities. it can present new opportunities to the neighborhood. it's a site that's the right place to be building housing and it's not insignificant number of units to provide. i wanted to thank you in advance for making this opportunity possible. it's a great team with an impressive track record. i think they would be able to work collaboratively with the community to make it a success. we need housing in all parts of the city and this is a special opportunity within our borders. thank you and good luck. >> thank you. next ms. madeleine mueller.
6:42 am
are you here? i'm going to read off a few names, so you can line up. mr. alvardo gonzalez. todd david. and corey smith. thank you for your time. please go ahead. >> they were referring to a previous agreement between you guys and the college in 1991 where there was an exchange of property and i suggest that before you go forward with this kind of an agreement you look into the precedent-setting procedures that are in place from a similar situation 25 years ago. there's a seeming rush on you.
6:43 am
and i ask that it be postponed at least until research can be done and checked out for the appropriate legal opinions. some suggest that the college has been sufficiently involved and that can be challenged on the grounds that represent the college's interests did so while acting as administrators and trustees during the years of the now-proven illegal takeover of the college. many of these individuals have since left or been removed from the district and i think of any legal fair reading would point out that college hasn't had proper input since 2012. legal challenges come from a variety of sources. for that reason, it would be more prudent of you, the puc, to postpone the decision and surely
6:44 am
if you do for even only a few months, there would be time for some of the questions that you are hearing today to become more available. the entire future of the college is at stake. time should be taken to do the right thing for the 25,000 to 30,000 students affected by the land which has been used by them since 1946. and i want to say previously today, i applaud you for the dam situation up north and the caring for fish. i hope you have similar care for the students. [applause] >> thank you. mr. gonzalez. welcome. good afternoon. >> hello, everyone. i'm a student at city college and i'm a professional at lincoln high school. i wanted to read an open letter that we sent to the board of trustees and to the chancellor and publicly state that the
6:45 am
developer stating that they opened the process up to students is untrue. it's been very limited in providing our input and the student government is considering a resolution asking the puc to transfer the land to city college so we can develop something that fits our needs. san francisco and city college must resist the proposal to privatize public land and build mostly luxury housing. we should refocus on building our treasure, city college. many developers have been ramming through plans for a housing project of 1,100 mostly luxury units where city college has used for parking for decades. please don't let it go forward. it would pose a major obstacle to city college enrollment. take a giant step of the
6:46 am
gentrification and complete a barrier to the arts center. and add traffic congestion to a badly impacted neighborhood in san francisco and remove access to education for thousands of people that depend on parking to fit city college into their hectic lives. please do not, do not sign this agreement and consider transferring the land over to city college. thank you. [applause] >> mr. todd davis. good afternoon. >> corey smith, on behalf of the san francisco action coalition. i've been attending these meetings for the last two years. i think it's another
6:47 am
step in the right direction. we ask you to approve the agreement here today. i think it's a good example of what we're looking at as a public-private partnership. even saying that the majority of the units is luxury is false. 50% will be affordable. and then talking about another couple hundred for ccsf faculty, staff or students. so at the end of the day, we could have a majority sub stayedized affordable housing on this site. and really kind of taking care of the opportunities that's been there. we're looking at a minimum of 1,100 units. the governor's director stresses building affordable homes for people. one of the ways is to create an
6:48 am
affordable living environment so maybe they don't have to commute to attend classes. one thing i want to bring up and this was brought up at the board of trustees meetings. people keep talking about turning the land over to the public sector. they're not a housing developer. i'm not sure what people expect the community college to do with a big parking lot. so what is being asked is to maintain the status quo. and so i do see an opportunity here when i see a giant parking lot underutilized next to transit, maybe we should build a lot of housing here and i know there are many people that support there as well. thank you. >> thank you. next is mr. todd david. welcome, mr. david. >> todd david, on behalf of the san francisco housing act coalition. i want to reiterate some of the
6:49 am
things from earlier today. this is 17 acres. 17 acres. and we're talking about right now 1,100 units. if we had our way, we would advocate for more housing on this. it's perfectly located, near transit, you know, gets people out of cars. people would not have to commute as far if this was here. i also want to point out, at 50% affordable, that's a top watermark. there is no part of san francisco, the city, that builds housing. we've not had a public entity in san francisco build for the last 50 years. the people that build in san francisco, 80% to 90% are nonprofit community developers. and san francisco -- i don't think -- we don't talk about this enough, san francisco has
6:50 am
the most affordable housing for low-income workers per capita than any other municipality in the state of california. let me repeat that -- san francisco has the most low-income affordable housing in the state per capita. we've funded projects through community development. the thing that's great is we're taking the money from market rate and giving it to the nonprofit. we're not draining $1 of city money that can go to 100% affordable housing. this is a win-win. and it's great to hear all the people out here concerned that we don't have enough infrastructure. i agree. we should be building new bart stations and muni lines and that they don't need any more parking at city college. thank you. >> thank you, mr. david.
6:51 am
last two speakers, laura clark and anito seabaras. so ms. clark? welcome ms. clark. good afternoon. >> sorry. hi. laura clark. we represent the people that think we need a lot more housing in this city. this is a fantastic opportunity that can not be missed. and it cannot be set back 10 years on an idea that the city college is going to start developing housing. i think that's not something that city college wants to do and it's not something that they're going to do. we started privatizing all of our affordable housing decades
6:52 am
ago. it's managed by private nonprofits that are great private nonprofits that do a will theed -- a lot to serve low-income residents. i hope that the people here today advocating for government to do that continue to do that in a forward-looking manner. we have a lot of parking lots that could be pub lilic housing. i think we should do social housing. there's no reason to shoot ourselves in the foot for a request to do local housing at a later date. the best way to bring down carbon emissions, talking about a solar farm and other things. the thing that california needs to do to bring down carbon emissions, and we all know this, build housing in dense, vibrant, walkable places with transit and
6:53 am
buses and stop doing car-centric investment. i look forward to seeing the activists that are concerned about parking and commutes at the next transit meeting. i think there's a great opportunity here and i look forward to seeing what we can do at balboa. thanks. >> last speaker i have right now, anita theo-harris. >> president of the westwood park association. the 650 homes that are part of the planned unit development that directly abutts the college. as for as the ena, people here that are a lot smarter than i am have told you our opinion and how much say-so you will use. i'm saying it in housewife
6:54 am
english. no one is talking about the fact that the chancellor was fired. they lost their accreditation, a receiver was appointed. you have a new chancellor. you have -- just since january, the board of trustees now. please, there's not even been a study done and i've lived there 30 years. those students need -- it's a commuter school. they need the parking. i can see the parking lot from my window and when school's in, it's full. to even enter into an ena where you lose so much power when they haven't even done a study is just baffling to me. you're right. the world has changed. city college is getting on its feet. the world has also changed in that if these kids don't get educated, they won't be able to
6:55 am
live a good, quality live. city college is a good part of this. at the very least, think about this a little longer. thank you. >> thank you very much. [applause] do we have any other public comment on this item? okay. commissioners, any discussion? >> first question, it was brought up the land swap and the status of landownership. could we have that clarified? >> we swapped and reconfigured the reservoir site so they could build an additional building and a performing arts center. and we exchanged our property with 17th and folsom and sold
6:56 am
the site to the parks department and mayor's office of housing. >> so who owns the balboa reservoir site? >> it's buy -- bifurcated. partly city college and partly puc. >> so the swap was a different parcel than what is being proposed? >> that's correct. >> okay. city college itself, have we heard from them officially about this project and their view of it? >> the board of trustees had a meeting on october 26 of this year and there was a resolution
6:57 am
tabled. >> so they didn't come to an opinion pro or con? >> correct. >> okay. the project as it's being talked about, how firm a project definition is that at this stage? >> that's part of what we'll talk about. we intend to discuss this project with the city college and make sure that the project works hand in hand with what they're proposing on their site. >> projecting forward when the project is better defined, what
6:58 am
kind of approval has to take place? >> we'll come back to you with terms and conditions and you will have to approve them and it will include a project description, which will be carried forward to the environmental review process. >> and then the environmental review process, that's siqa? >> correct. >> as we know it? >> correct. >> and that will look at all kinds of impacts, parking, traffic. >> correct. all of the issues. >> and when it comes back to us a third time it will have findings and we'll have to decide whether the mitigation measures support the findings? >> correct. >> and subsequent it any
6:59 am
approval that we might or might not give on that, what additional approvals would be required? >> the other approvals might include looking at the fiscal viability of the project and i cannot remember the government code section that's under, but we'll bring it back to you in the next couple of months before we submit that to the board of autop supervisors for their review and approval and then the adoption of the siqa findings and measures and anything else you deem necessary and sale of the property. >> does the -- what is the role of the planning commission in that? >> they are the lead. they run that process on behalf of the city. >> and board of supervisors? >> they have to finally approve the fiscal project and sale of
7:00 am
the land. and they're response if eir is appealed, it can be appealed to the board of supervisors. >> any other approvals that i missed? >> not off the top of my head, but it's getting hot in here. >> thank you. >> can i guess a clarifying question, a lot of people have been advocating for or against us approving the agreement. but that's not what is happening today. we're approving the negotiations of the agreement and then the agreement would come back. >> right. >> so there are components that potentially could be negotiated, just to be really clear, between now and when it comes back. >> right. so part of it is -- and i will be very honest about this -- we want you to sign this agreement because that places the burden on the developer to address the